knowledge of electricity? How many such workers are there? How is their work conducted? Are local or nearby electric power stations used for lectures and classes? How many of them?

In how many educational institutions has the teaching of the electrification plan been introduced, in accordance with the decision of the VIII Congress of Soviets?

Has anything practical been done, and what exactly, in the implementation of this plan? Or are there electrification works standing outside the plan?

Is there a local plan and schedule of work for electrification?

# 25. COMMODITY EXCHANGE WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES

A response to this question is absolutely mandatory for all border regions, but not only for them. In districts and provinces neighboring the border regions, there are possibilities for commodity exchange and observation of its implementation. Furthermore, as indicated above (§ 16: naturalization of incentives), participation in foreign commodity exchange is possible even for localities quite remote from the border.

Condition of ports? Protection of borders? Scale and forms of trade relations? Brief summaries of reports presented on this to the People's Commissariat of Foreign Trade with an indication of when each report was submitted.

Verification of the work of the NCFT by local Economic Councils? Their observations on the practical implementation and on the results?

# 26. RAILWAY, WATER, AND LOCAL TRANSPORT

Brief summaries of reports submitted by the department with an indication of when each report was submitted.

Assessment of the state of affairs from a local perspective.

V. I. LENIN

Deficiencies in transport. Measures for improvement and the results of these measures?

Condition of local transport and measures for its improvement.

# 27. SUPPORT OF ECONOMIC WORK BY THE PRESS

Local organs of the press and "Economic Life." How is the coverage of economic work arranged? Participation of non-party members? Verification and evaluation of practical experience?

Circulation of local organs of the press and "Economic Life"? Their preservation in libraries and accessibility to the population?

Publication of brochures and books on economic construction. A list of published editions.

Need for foreign literature and its supply. Were publications from BINTA (Bureau of Foreign Science and Technology) received and what is their evaluation? Other foreign publications in Russian and other languages?

# FOURTH GROUP OF QUESTIONS

This group should include questions selected and indicated by the local institutions and individual persons themselves — questions which may be directly or indirectly, closely or distantly connected with economic construction.

Local workers of the Central Statistical Administration must necessarily be involved in the compilation of reports. Whether they are directly entrusted with the report or other persons undertake it is a matter for the local Economic Councils to decide, but participation of the provincial and district statistical bureaus is mandatory. Each report or each answer to a question, if these answers are written by different persons, must be signed by the author with an indication of his position, if he holds an official post. For the report, both the author of the report and the entire composition of the local Economic Councils are responsible, whose duty it is to submit accurate, timely, and truthful reports.

In the event of insufficient local personnel, courses for instruction in report compilation must be organized under the responsibility of statisticians and specially appointed comrades (from the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection and other institutions), with publication of the persons responsible for conducting the courses and a calendar program of their work.

21. V. 1921
Lenin

Printed in 1921 as a separate brochure, checked against the manuscript

# DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RCP(b)

Decision of the CC (Politburo) of 22/V. 1921 on the question of the decisions of the RCP faction at the Congress of Trade Unions

The Central Committee approves the theses of comrade Chubar (adopted by the fraction's bureau) and rejects the theses of comrade Goltzman on the ground that the former are incomparably more correctly calculated to match the actual state of our resources, our forces and means, which makes it necessary to reckon on slower implementation of our immediate objectives.

The latter theses, that is, comrade Goltzman's theses, fall in many respects into fantasy divorced from life, a vice suffered in large measure by comrade Larin, who zealously defended these theses.

The practically most important constituent part of both sets of theses is only the idea expressed in the note to § 3 of Chubar's theses and in § 6 of Goltzman's theses, and both comrades confirm rather than dispute here the decision adopted by the CC on 10. V. 1921 on the project of comrade Larin and the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions.

Here is the text of this note:

"The entire above-mentioned system of distribution must be introduced as an experiment in certain enterprises, introducing in them, instead of individual card-based distribution, collective supply of workers of the enterprise on condition of increased productivity of their labor."

Here is the text of this 6th paragraph:

"Until the formation of a food wage fund, the indicated system of distribution must be introduced as an experiment in certain enterprises, introducing in them instead of individual card-based distribution, collective supply of workers of the enterprises, on condition of increased productivity of their labor."

Here is the text of this decision:

"Reject the project of comrade Larin and the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions in the part concerning wage policy, instructing the authors of the project to reconsider the question a second time more thoroughly from the point of view, in particular, of the possibility of ensuring real supply at minimum food rations to the minimum number of workers. Submit the project after revision to the Council of People's Commissars for the purpose of introducing it as an experiment in certain enterprises instead of individual card-based distribution, collective supply on condition of increased productivity of labor."

The fraction of the RCP at the Congress of Trade Unions, contrary to the recommendation of the Party's Central Committee, approved Goltzman's theses by 567 votes, rejecting Chubar's theses, which received 317 votes.

The CC, not wishing to overturn a decision of the fraction on a question which does not depend on immediate changes in government policy — since this policy is predetermined by that decision of the CC of 10. V. 1921 which, as indicated above, was approved rather than disputed by both comrade Goltzman and comrade Chubar — refuses in this instance to exercise its right of intervention in the course of the Congress's work and decisions.

The CC limits itself to ordering that this resolution be announced to the fraction, directing the intense attention of the delegates to the obligation they have undertaken by the adoption of Goltzman's resolution to demonstrate not only extraordinary heroism, but also persistence, self-control, and determination in struggling against old habits, customs, and conditions of life of the broad working masses, far exceeding even the norms usual in revolutionary times. Upon the unions falls the obligation, in consequence of the decision they are adopting, to achieve an extraordinarily rapid reduction in the number of enterprises and workers by concentrating the latter in a minimum of the best and largest enterprises.

Written between 17 and 22 May 1921

Partially printed in August 1921 in "Izvestiia of the CC of the RCP(b)" No. 32

First printed in full in 1959 in Lenin Collection XXXVI

Printed from the manuscript

# TO THE COMRADE MINERS OF THE PETROVSK GROUP

Comrade Mezhlаuk informed me of the great success of your work for the month of April 1921: 294 poods per face-worker when it was 291 poods in 1914. I send greetings to the comrade miners on this rare and great success and the warmest salutation. With such work we shall overcome all difficulties and electrify the Donbas and the Krivoy Rog region, and in that lies everything.

With communist greetings

V. Ulyanov (Lenin)

Written 25 May 1921

Printed in July 1921 in the journal "Herald of Workers' Government" No. 9-10

Printed from the text of the journal

# X ALL-RUSSIAN CONFERENCE OF THE RCP(b)

26-28 MAY 1921

Printed 27 and 28 May 1921 in the "Bulletin of the All-Russian Conference of the RCP (Bolsheviks)" Nos. 1 and 2

Printed from the text of the "Bulletin," checked against the stenographic record

# 1

# SPEECH AT THE OPENING OF THE CONFERENCE

26 MAY

Comrades, allow me to declare the All-Russian Conference of the RCP open.

You know, comrades, that the present conference has been convened earlier than provided for by the statute. Consequently, it is not regular, or at least not entirely regular. Furthermore, you know that the main point on the agenda, the main question which compelled us to convene the conference earlier than we had planned, is the question of economic policy — of the food tax. This question is the principal one at the present time.

I propose that we proceed to the election of the conference presidium.

V. I. LENIN

# STATEMENT ON THE QUESTION OF THE CONFERENCE AGENDA

26 MAY

Comrades, we, as I have already said, anticipated and the very character of the conference indicated that the only point on the agenda would be the question of economic policy. The other reports were intended to be informational in character, so that I did not prepare a report on the political account, but it seems to me that this report will have to be reduced to the same economic theme. Therefore, perhaps, to satisfy everyone, after the report I will be asked supplementary questions, which I will answer in my concluding remarks. I repeat that I have prepared myself in no way for this question and at the moment I cannot imagine what I would speak about apart from the question of the food tax.

Printed for the first time from the stenographic record

# X ALL-RUSSIAN CONFERENCE OF THE RCP(b)

# 3

# REPORT ON THE FOOD TAX

26 MAY

Comrades, I had to discuss the question of the food tax for the party in a brochure which, I presume, is familiar to the majority of those present. For me personally, the placing of this question before party discussion was unexpected in the sense that I did not personally have materials regarding the necessity of such a placing of the question, but very many of the comrades who had been in the localities, in particular comrade Osinsky, after his trip through a number of provinces, reported to the CC — and this was supported by several other comrades — that in the localities the policy, which has taken shape in connection with the food tax, remains to a tremendous extent unexplained, partly even misunderstood. And in view of the exceptional importance of this policy, additional discussion at a party conference seemed so necessary that it was decided to convene the conference ahead of schedule.

You know that we decided in the CC to divide the report on this question into 4 parts, so that 4 speakers would take the floor: on the question of the work of cooperatives — Kamenev, on small industry — Milyutin; on the question of exact calculations and estimates at Komprod and the organizational steps connected with this — comrade Sviderskii. Here the instruction and the regulations on the tax system are of particular importance, which have been approved in part by the Council of People's Commissars and in part must be approved in the near future. And, finally, the fourth speaker should be comrade Khintchuk, who is now completely freed from work at Komprod in order to concentrate entirely on cooperative work as chairman of the Central Union of Cooperatives.

The basic principle adopted was that here commodity exchange should be carried out by Komprod, primarily and even chiefly, through the Central Union of Cooperatives, through the cooperatives. And in the agreement between Komprod and the Central Union of Cooperatives we must formalize these relations, which have taken the form of an agreement. In this agreement it is stipulated that all goods available for commodity exchange are transferred by Komprod to the Central Union of Cooperatives. From this the role of the Central Union of Cooperatives is clear and there is no need to dwell on this in detail. Thus, it falls to me to provide an introduction on the question of the general significance of this policy, and I would like to limit myself to only small supplements to what I have said in the brochure. As to how exactly the question is now being posed in the localities, what deficiencies, shortcomings and obscurities are most felt in the localities, I am not directly informed on this score. I will probably still have to give additional explanations when from the questions put to the conference, or from further debate, it becomes clear in what direction the attention of local workers and of the party should now be directed.

As far as I could see, the misunderstandings and insufficient clarity in understanding the political tasks in connection with the food tax and the new economic policy are connected, perhaps, with exaggerations on one side or the other of the matter. But such exaggerations, as long as we have not put the matter into practice, are absolutely inevitable, and it is hardly possible, before we have carried out even one food campaign on new principles, to work out with any precision the actual limits of application of one or another peculiarity of this policy. I will only dwell in general outline on some contradictions which, as I could judge from some notes submitted at the meeting, caused the most misunderstandings. The food tax and the changes connected with it in our policy are often interpreted in the sense of a fundamental turning point in it. It is not surprising that such an interpretation is intensely inflated by the White Guard press abroad, chiefly by the Socialist Revolutionary and Menshevik press. But I do not know whether due to some influence of analogous actions, which make themselves felt on the territory of the RSFSR as well, or due to acute discontent which was felt in certain circles and perhaps is still felt now as a consequence of the extraordinary worsening of the food situation — perhaps to a certain extent such misunderstandings spread among us as well and created to a considerable degree an incorrect representation of the significance of the change that had taken place and the character of the new policy.

It is a natural thing that given the enormous predominance of the peasant population, our principal task — both of policy in general and of economic policy in particular — is the establishment of definite relations between the working class and the peasantry. For the first time in modern history we are dealing with such a social order in which the exploiting class has been removed, but in which we have two different classes — the working class and the peasantry. Given the enormous predominance of the peasantry, this predominance could not but be reflected in economic policy and in policy generally. The main question for us remains — and for a long series of years must inevitably remain — the correct establishment of relations between these two classes, or more correctly, from the point of view of the elimination of classes. The formula of agreement between the working class and the peasantry is very often stopped at and very often used against us by enemies of Soviet power, because the formula in itself is completely indefinite. By agreement between the working class and the peasantry one can understand anything. If we do not bear in mind that agreement, from the point of view of the working class, is only then admissible, correct, and principally possible when it supports the dictatorship of the working class and is one of the measures directed toward the elimination of classes, then the formula of agreement between the working class and the peasantry, of course, remains a formula which all enemies of Soviet power and all enemies of dictatorship conduct in their views. How, in the first period of our revolution — that is, the period which can now be approximately considered as being realized — is this agreement to be achieved? How did the dictatorship of the proletariat, given the enormous predominance of the peasant population, maintain itself and become consolidated? The principal cause, the principal moving force, and the principal determinant of our agreement was civil war. Civil war, which, although it began in many instances with participation in an alliance against us by both White Guards and Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, inevitably led to the result that all Socialist Revolutionary, Constituent-Assembly, and Menshevik elements were, whether through a coup d'état or without it, pushed into the background, and at the head of the White Guard movement stood wholly capitalist and landlord elements. This was the case in Kolchak's and Denikin's governments and in all the numerous smaller governments and invasions against us. And this was the principal factor which determined the form of the alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry. This circumstance created for us incredible difficulties twofold over, but, on the other hand, freed us from difficult deliberation as to how the formula of alliance between the working class and the peasantry should be realized, because military circumstances prescribed this formula and conditions with absolute categoric force, leaving us not the slightest choice.

The working class alone could only realize the dictatorship in that form which was required by war and the conditions of this civil war. The participation of landlords in it united the working class and the peasants absolutely, unconditionally, and irrevocably. In this respect there were no internal political vacillations. In face of the gigantic difficulties before us, due to the cutting off of Russia's main grain regions, in consequence of food difficulties being driven to the extreme, our food policy could not be realized in practice without requisitions. These requisitions meant not only the seizure of surpluses, which could scarcely suffice even with proper distribution. I cannot dwell here in detail on what irregularities requisitions entailed. In any case, requisitions fulfilled their task — the preservation of industry, albeit under conditions of greatest isolation from grain regions — and only in a military situation could this be at all satisfactory. As soon as we had genuinely and firmly finished with the external enemy — and this only became a fact by 1921 — before us arose a different task — the task of an economic alliance between the working class and the peasantry. Only in the spring of 1921 did we directly pose this task, and this happened when the crop failure of 1920 had worsened the situation of the peasants to an incredible degree, when for the first time we experienced, to a certain extent, internal political vacillations not connected with external pressure from enemies...